Your emphasis on the definition of the word seemed to be designed to obscure the nature of the argument.
The definition of which word? I can't tell what you're trying to be wrong about.
What's curious is that you would make a comparison between an opinion about biology and an opinion about human society.
My point being that facts about biology are more relevant to biology. This is not so much curious as obvious ... to people who aren't you.
Yes, my opinions are:
1) that marriage is for (human) heterosexuals, which combination is obviously designed for procreation ...
Well, the stupidity of that opinion has already been discussed on another thread. Let's move on, eh?
2) that ability to interbreed is an artificial definition of a Species ...
But it is not artificial, it is very natural. It's not something humans have decided, like (for example) the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor, or the difference between a hill and a mountain, or the border between the US and Canada --- it is
there in nature, a naturally occurring barrier to gene flow between groups of organisms. Nature divides them and their descendants forever, and we just observe the division that exists in nature. And the groups so divided we call "species". And when I say "we" I mean everyone from me to freakin' Ken Ham.
Yes, interbreeding needs to be dropped as a criterion for the definition of Species. "In favor of what?" you ask.
I did indeed. If only you would answer my question, instead of producing drivel like this:
In favor of dropping an irrelevancy so that the actual biological fact can be recognized, that there is no new Species here.
Don't you ever feel just a little ashamed of yourself?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.